This is very helpful, as well. Can you point me to the verse that says “fill the earth and subdue it”?
Also, I asked a Christian friend about Eve and the snake and she said that she believes most people take it Adam to be the transgressor because he was “in charge” and present when the snake tempted Eve. I don’t believe this (either that Adam was intended to be the transgressor, or that most people read it that way), but I don’t have solid evidence to the contrary.
For the old testament? Certainly some of the myths date back to the bronze age, right?
That would depend on which Christian sect you’re talking about. Some follow some laws, some follow others…there are no hard and fast rules about this.
Again, this depends on which Christian sect is telling the tale, and the agenda they which wish to push.
Makes sense. Why does it seem like the concept of woman being the transgressor seems to be the most widespread agenda? This was the first time I had heard that Adam was at fault, and have always heard that Eve is.
There’s also the point in the Bible in which God tells specifically Adam not to eat of the tree, and never explicitly tells Eve (so that assumes that what Eve was told was hearsay, thus leading to the opinion that Eve shouldn’t be held entirely accountable). What do you think?
from chapter One:
26 And God saith, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.' 27 And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them. 28 And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and [COLOR=“navy”]fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.’
29 And God saith, `Lo, I have given to you every herb sowing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which [is] the fruit of a tree sowing seed, to you it is for food;
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to every creeping thing on the earth, in which [is] breath of life, every green herb [is] for food:’ and it is so.[/COLOR]
If you read the next chapter, the contrast is pretty stark. Adam is made of the dust of the earth, not in god’s image, and Eve is made from Adam. Also, they are not given the fill the earth and subdue it edict.
Nevermind the fact that 29-30 here above tells people “eat all this stuff in front of you”, with no hint of dietary reservations. There may be a way to explain that away, perhaps after the flood some things became haram to eat. The before-the-flood era was rather magical, with some characters living many centuries. You would think people would get pretty bored and weary of life after two or three hundred years.
So could Christians reconcile the idea of man being created in God’s image by saying, although he was created from the dust of the earth, he was still created in God’s image with this dust?
I was under the impression that the dietary restrictions for Adam and Eve were that of vegetarianism, while later, God tells Noah that:
Gen. 9.2: “The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.”
Gen. 9.3: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”
Thus introducing a carnivorous diet to humans.
Also, the idea of mankind living for many centuries interests me. In Gen. 6.3 the lifespan is limited (“Then the Lord said, 'My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years”), while, if I remember correctly, some people still go on to live hundreds of years after this limit is placed. Thoughts?
Yes, they probably do. Research indicates that Edomite copper mines may have been the basis for the legend of King Solomon’s Mines, producing copper instead of gold, and dating back into the Bronze Age. The Iron Age had no definite start to it, iron was in use far back into the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age emerges over time in different parts of the world. Certainly the stories of Egyptian monument building were set in the Bronze Age. Of course any of the stories could be entirely fiction and nowhere as old as believed.
No :
[QUOTE=Jesus]
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
[/QUOTE]
Typically, they distinguish between “ritual law” (like circumcision, sacrifices at the temple, eating lobster) that Jesus has made irrelevant and “moral law” (like following the ten commandments, not having homsexual sex,…) that still apply.
How is the distinction between “ritual law” and “moral law” made, exactly? Couldn’t one argue that ritual law was intended to be moral law? (Is this what Judaism believes?)
Also, how exactly did Jesus make ritual law irrelevant? I’m more familiar with the OT than the NT and honestly don’t know.
They probably do. I have not paid a great deal of attention to the extent of the contortions and gyrations of religious leaders to make the narrative work. Mostly it does not concern me.
It appears that that passage reflects jehovallah’s assessment of the character of man. Humans had become less spiritual and more animal-like, so it decided the clamp down on these near-millennial lifespans, because those fuckers did not deserve it.
No. I’ve underlined the 32 names of living issue in the following. Where’s #33 ?
[QUOTE=Moses in Genesis 46, as translated by the First Westminster Company, by order of King James I]
Which wife was “of the house of Jacob”?
Though the lifespan was limited to “one hundred and twenty years,” Abraham defied that and lived to be 175. Why did the lifespan limit not apply to Abraham?
Wondering if you could offer a source that shows that the accepted version of creation is that animals came first and then man?
Also, how does this explain Genesis 2 in which God makes animals as helpers of man?
Tell me, does the correct way to beat your slave come under "moral"or "ritual"law?
That’s why I was wondering whether ritual law could be argued as moral law or vice versa, leaving the distinction between the two unreliable.
OK, you got me, I counted Pharez twice by mistake. My apologies.
Ask someone else. It was probably because he was more spiritual than those around him, but that is just a wild guess.
This is the fucking huge conundrum that the bible fails to address. What was the tree? It was The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
So?
So, before they ate of that tree, they had no knowledge of good and evil. They did not understand right and wrong. That event signifies the birth of morality in humans. But jehovallah told them not to eat that fruit. That is all. If the fruit itself bestowed moral understanding, how could they possibly know that it was wrong to eat it? Why the hell would jehovallah punish them for an act that they did not realize was wrong? What a dick.
Some do, most don’t. Many see it as an early attempt to explain the world to an audience that wasn’t ready for science. People, at that time, would have had a hard time understanding the big bang, super novas, quasars, black holes, light years, etc.
They likely would have laughed at someone suggesting cyanobacteria riding on a space rock might have been responsible for life on earth, not Adam and Eve. People were fed what they could digest.
This is very helpful. I, too, see it as an early attempt to explain the world to an audience not ready for science. But what about Christian fundamentalists? What about those who read the Bible literally? I was under the impression that these people were a large Christian population. Is that not true?
Yes, it is not true. They are a loud minority.